Who will be Next POTUS come Nov.....

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I haven't voted Republican since 1988. I will pull the red lever this time without flinching because the Democrats have stopped toying with Marxism and are now the real thing.

You don't have to know you're a Marxist to be one. My standard would be the planks of the Manifesto, which is the planks of the Democratic party platform.

Winston Churchill: The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. Obama's certainly shown the equal sharing of miseries. That would be except of course the political elites. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, they aren't suffering at all.

More Marxist crap.

I like how I gave you my standard, the planks of the communist manifesto. You had the chance to refute me on content. Of course you can't, Obama is a Marxist by the measure of Marxism, so you just do a hand wave.

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

Is that like saying my dad is responsible for me if I'm broke, and jobless, and homeless??? That is laughable.

you really are a CRAZY-HORSE...!!!

LOL....carry over cost. That Should be Obama's new PLATFORM.

Bush didn't pay for his wars (Obama had to), nor did Bush pay for the tax cuts for the rich that he passed on to Obama, nor did Bush pay for increased costs in Medicare that he caused by protecting drug companies and passed on to Obama, nor did Obama cause the bailout of the Banks caused by Bush's failure to enforce regulation. When determining how much a President has spent, one must count only those costs he initiated. In short, those who accuse Obama of spending too much money, should not blame Obama for paying Bush's bills, which he had to, by law.

Your analogy makes no sense, unless you consider that your father has run up bills that you have to pay, by law . In that case. yes, it would be true that you are homeless because of your father.

Back to Obama. It is totally true that of the five to six trillion he is usually accused of having spent, only a trillion and a half has been on his own projects. The rest has been spent on "carry over" costs from Bush's administration. This is one of the big reasons that Obama's supporters don't blame him for running up debt. Another big reason is that he tried to get Republicans in congress to make four trillion in cuts, but they refused. The reason for their refusal was that they didn't want Obama to look good. Instead of helping the country, they chose to create a phony campaign issue and constantly hammered away at Obama for spending too much and not caring about the deficit, which was a cheap lie that has not worked.

In other words ... baa ...

And yes, comrade, all money is the people's money. "Tax cuts" which are taking less money from people have to be "paid for." They are government spending.

And economically, tax cuts have grown revenue whether it's a D (JFK) or an R (Reagan). You don't like them because they are a weapon in your class warfare arsenal, at least be honest.

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

Is that like saying my dad is responsible for me if I'm broke, and jobless, and homeless??? That is laughable.

you really are a CRAZY-HORSE...!!!

LOL....carry over cost. That Should be Obama's new PLATFORM.

Bush didn't pay for his wars (Obama had to), nor did Bush pay for the tax cuts for the rich that he passed on to Obama, nor did Bush pay for increased costs in Medicare that he caused by protecting drug companies and passed on to Obama, nor did Obama cause the bailout of the Banks caused by Bush's failure to enforce regulation. When determining how much a President has spent, one must count only those costs he initiated. In short, those who accuse Obama of spending too much money, should not blame Obama for paying Bush's bills, which he had to, by law.

Your analogy makes no sense, unless you consider that your father has run up bills that you have to pay, by law . In that case. yes, it would be true that you are homeless because of your father.

Back to Obama. It is totally true that of the five to six trillion he is usually accused of having spent, only a trillion and a half has been on his own projects. The rest has been spent on "carry over" costs from Bush's administration. This is one of the big reasons that Obama's supporters don't blame him for running up debt. Another big reason is that he tried to get Republicans in congress to make four trillion in cuts, but they refused. The reason for their refusal was that they didn't want Obama to look good. Instead of helping the country, they chose to create a phony campaign issue and constantly hammered away at Obama for spending too much and not caring about the deficit, which was a cheap lie that has not worked.

In other words ... baa ...

And yes, comrade, all money is the people's money. "Tax cuts" which are taking less money from people have to be "paid for." They are government spending.

And economically, tax cuts have grown revenue whether it's a D (JFK) or an R (Reagan). You don't like them because they are a weapon in your class warfare arsenal, at least be honest.

Tax cuts are, in fact, government spending, or investing, if you wish. They were given to the rich as a stimulus to produce new business and hence new jobs. Trouble is, the cuts have been in place for over a decade without producing anything but a deepening deficit. No responsible economist believes in trickle down anymore. The cuts have not grown revenue or produced jobs (obviously). If they had, no one would be against them. Do you think people are stupid?

crazyhorse1 wrote:Tax cuts are, in fact, government spending, or investing, if you wish. They were given to the rich as a stimulus to produce new business and hence new jobs.

Yes, I agree, comrade. All money is the people's money. I already said that, comrade. When government doesn't take people's money from them, that is government spending. You won't take yes for an answer, will you comrade?

crazyhorse1 wrote:Trouble is, the cuts have been in place for over a decade without producing anything but a deepening deficit. No responsible economist believes in trickle down anymore. The cuts have not grown revenue or produced jobs (obviously). If they had, no one would be against them. Do you think people are stupid?

So my choices are that I concede you and liberal LAWYERS know more then the entire field of ECONOMICS, which is my field as I'm a business and finance guy, or I think you're stupid. Those polar extremes are my only choice, got it. What I actually think:

1) In the last decade we were buried in government spending. The tax cuts were positive, as all economics will tell you, but it wasn't enough to overcome the massive spending and suffocating regulation that inherently comes with it. You cannot pick one single factor and ignore everything else, sorry.

2) The positive effect of the tax cuts were also partially undone by the complexity W, who is no fiscal conservative, brought with them. Tax cuts and simplification would have been far more effective. The reason is tax complexity sends investors off to minimize taxes which means the complexity leads to economically inefficient decisions.

3) Your view that only tax cuts affect deficits and spending and regulation are irrelevant as well as your view that the entire field of economics is wrong is ... incredibly self serving to your big government agenda, isn't it crazyhorse?

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I haven't voted Republican since 1988. I will pull the red lever this time without flinching because the Democrats have stopped toying with Marxism and are now the real thing.

You don't have to know you're a Marxist to be one. My standard would be the planks of the Manifesto, which is the planks of the Democratic party platform.

Winston Churchill: The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. Obama's certainly shown the equal sharing of miseries. That would be except of course the political elites. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, they aren't suffering at all.

More Marxist crap.

I like how I gave you my standard, the planks of the communist manifesto. You had the chance to refute me on content. Of course you can't, Obama is a Marxist by the measure of Marxism, so you just do a hand wave.

I refuted you long ago but you won't accept it - hence, more Marxist crap.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I haven't voted Republican since 1988. I will pull the red lever this time without flinching because the Democrats have stopped toying with Marxism and are now the real thing.

You don't have to know you're a Marxist to be one. My standard would be the planks of the Manifesto, which is the planks of the Democratic party platform.

Winston Churchill: The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. Obama's certainly shown the equal sharing of miseries. That would be except of course the political elites. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, they aren't suffering at all.

More Marxist crap.

I like how I gave you my standard, the planks of the communist manifesto. You had the chance to refute me on content. Of course you can't, Obama is a Marxist by the measure of Marxism, so you just do a hand wave.

I refuted you long ago but you won't accept it - hence, more Marxist crap.

What you said was Democrats aren't Marxist because you didn't like it the way the planks were phrased. You didn't come up with any substantiative disagreement with the planks.

What I don't understand is why when the planks advocate what you want, you can't just say yes, you are a Marxist. Why does the word bother you if it's accurate? crazyhorse is here saying that all money is the governments, any money they allow people to keep is spending and you don't bat an eye. But Marxist, I can't say that, you don't like the word. Why? It's just a word. If it's accurate, why does it bother you?

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I haven't voted Republican since 1988. I will pull the red lever this time without flinching because the Democrats have stopped toying with Marxism and are now the real thing.

You don't have to know you're a Marxist to be one. My standard would be the planks of the Manifesto, which is the planks of the Democratic party platform.

Winston Churchill: The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. Obama's certainly shown the equal sharing of miseries. That would be except of course the political elites. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, they aren't suffering at all.

More Marxist crap.

I like how I gave you my standard, the planks of the communist manifesto. You had the chance to refute me on content. Of course you can't, Obama is a Marxist by the measure of Marxism, so you just do a hand wave.

I refuted you long ago but you won't accept it - hence, more Marxist crap.

What you said was Democrats aren't Marxist because you didn't like it the way the planks were phrased. You didn't come up with any substantiative disagreement with the planks.

What I don't understand is why when the planks advocate what you want, you can't just say yes, you are a Marxist. Why does the word bother you if it's accurate? crazyhorse is here saying that all money is the governments, any money they allow people to keep is spending and you don't bat an eye. But Marxist, I can't say that, you don't like the word. Why? It's just a word. If it's accurate, why does it bother you?

You use the word irresponsibly. Words have precise meanings, but you call anyone to the left of you a "Marxist." It's sort of a war against language. It's offensive to anyone who cares about language.

By the way, I am writing to you on the night Romney destroyed Obama in debate by lying his way to the left of Obama on every issue, even Medicare.
I'm a bit sick of the world's flim-flam at the moment: that includes your dishonestly in regard to labeling. You know better.

Special tax breaks for special people is government spending, pure and simple, regardless of your spin. l

crazyhorse1 wrote:I'm a bit sick of the world's flim-flam at the moment: that includes your dishonestly in regard to labeling. You know better.

You don't like the label of "Marxist," but you've never once even remotely accurately been able to state my basic views, so how would you know? I'm either a Republican or an anarchist. Those are my only choices. You can't even say the words that I'm for limited government, not no government.

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

crazyhorse1 wrote:By the way, I am writing to you on the night Romney destroyed Obama in debate by lying his way to the left of Obama on every issue, even Medicare.

Of course he lied. The word "liberal" simply means truth. Liberals are just honest, fair people who just look at situations and do what's logical. You can't defeat that except with lies. So all of us who aren't liberals do it. Liberals are obviously right, we know what we're telling are lies. We have to. But we're racist, sexist homophobes who want the country to be run by corporations and we want the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor. Truth doesn't get us there, truth is counter to that. So we lie to accomplish it.

crazyhorse1 wrote:Special tax breaks for special people is government spending, pure and simple, regardless of your spin. l

Special people? The tax breaks were by ... income. And still the more you make, the higher rate you pay. 1% of the country pay 20% of all taxes and 5% pay 60% of all taxes. But to reduce how much higher a rate they pay is "government spending." That can only be if you're a Marxist. Dude you're a Marxist. Not an insult, just an observation. You obviously don't read the Communist Manifesto and have any issue with the objectives or the plan. You demonstrate that with everything you say on the subject, both you and mini-you.

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

Well, let's go to what you consider left. You consider Obama "right of center." Obama is working to nationalize health care, energy and financial services. Obama wants to ratchet up taxes on the rich and he's working to destroy evil corporations and cripple them with government mandates and regulation. And you consider that "right of center."

Yeah, anyone you consider "left" is a Marxist. Anyone you consider "center" is a Marxist. Even people you consider "right of center" can be Marxists, you've demonstrated that.

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

Obama's major problems last night had nothing to do with Romney's "lies"

- Obama can't be both the "reform candidate" and the "incumbent". Romney nailed him on that by pointing out "you've been President for the last four years." We know what your record is, we know what your policies are, we know that you never mean what you say or say what you mean. Obama forgets that when he was candidate Obama he was just as vague on the key issues.

- Obama bemoans the "partisan gridlock" without acknowledging his role in it. When Obama did make specific promises, he did so knowing he had no support from the right; he just didn't care. He painted himself into a corner by insisting what he was going to do was "the right thing to do" while simultaneously painting the other party as the villain. He still does that today. If Romney is going to be successful, he is going to need help from the left. He needs to allow room for concessions for the left without them using those very same concessions against him. That's called politics. Neither party gets 100% of what they want, but both parties meet somewhere in between.

Romney has had to do that, as he accurately pointed out last night, for his entire political career. Even Obama knows Romney trumps him on bi-partisanship which led to his snide comment about "you're going to have a hard time reaching out to democrats by repealing Obamacare on your first day; a program they like."

Yeah, the Harry Reids and Nancy Pelosis love Obamacare, but even a majority of Democrats are distancing themselves from it. All those who didn't make a fortune investing in Visa and pharmacutical companies before voting on the bill realize the bill is radioactive. That's why no democrat currently running for office is touting his vote for Obamacare.

Obama had plenty of room in his 2000 page bill to work in some of the Republican ideas, but instead he chose to tell them "I won" and ignored every one of them. He knew he didn't need Republican votes to pass it, but had to bribe a few democrats to make sure he could pass it in as partisan a way possible.

- Obama's cheerleaders, who currently bemoan the fact that Obama didn't bring up the "47%" should be thankful he didn't. I am certain Romney was ready for it and would have further bloddied Obama's nose on national television. Romney was dead-on. There are some people who irregardless of the facts you present to them will still vote for Obama; no matter what.

What his cheerleaders should actually be REALLY thankful for is that the discussion never made it to foreign policy. Hopefully, the public will have forgotten enough of this debate by the next one that the two won't compound as much, because when the discussion shifts to that, Obama is in real trouble. His "unclenched fist" policy hasn't worked in the middle east, it has only emboldened our enemies.

"Fast and Furious" anyone? No joint cooperation with the Mexican Government (unlike the plan under Bush where we had their cooperation BEFORE the mission), hundreds dead in Mexico, investigation obstructed by Obama himself? How about the Keystone pipeline that he first rejected and put Canada in a position where they decided that they'd sell their oil to the Chinese instead?

Sure it was easy when he was candidate Obama and the media could selectively ignore his gaffes and hide his extremism, but it's a little harder to shuffle Obama's problems under the rug now that he's been president for four years.

His only defense is going to be that Romney has very little foreign policy expirience in comparison, but when compared to his own record, he's going to have problems.

- Obama brought up taxes on Exxon and should thank his lucky stars Romney didn't really nail him on that. Romney chose to go after the $90 billion dollars lost on failed green energy firms (which all happened to be large campaign donors and were given money no strings attached; Romney didn't even really nail that point).

Romney could have nailed him on the foolishness of raising taxes on oil companies while Americans (rich and poor alike) are paying nearly $4 a gallon as it is. Who does he think that's going to hurt more? Exxon, or the American people as those tax increases get passed on as ever higher gas prices?

Obama doesn't care about that; he's more interested in punishing the rich than he is helping the poor and that comment alone shows it.

Romney laid the trap for Obama about the 47% and practically dared him to bring it up because his response was going to be about finding a way to get those who can work into jobs where they are working (and paying taxes instead of sucking up tax dollars). He was ready for it, and while I can't say exactly what he would have said, all the markers were there.

- The only way Obama wins the next debate is if the moderator helps him out. This one last night let both candidates go at each other. Yes, he gave Romney a lot of time, but he did the same for Obama. Obama's only trick left is the same trick he's used in every election he's ever run. Demonize your opponent, look for something, anything in his background and when all else fails, paint him as a racist/mysogynist/homophobe

“If you grow up in metro Washington, you grow up a diehard Redskins fan. But if you hate your parents, you grow up a Cowboys fan.”-Jim Lachey